Mitt Romney won a commanding victory that will allow him to claim the party is uniting behind his candidacy.

Updated 11:36 p.m.

LAS VEGAS -- Surprising almost no one, Mitt Romney won the Nevada caucuses on Saturday. Associated Press returns from 14 of 17 counties -- but not Clark County, the largest in the state -- showed Romney drawing 42 percent of the votes. Entrance polls of caucus-goers released by CNN earlier in the night showed Romney pulling 55 percent of the vote statewide.

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul were locked in a tight race for second with 25 and 20 percent of the vote, according to the A.P., with Santorum trailing at 13 percent.

If the exit poll results hold once the Las Vegas votes are counted, it would mark an improvement for Romney from 2008, when he won 51 percent of the Nevada vote. That's significant because Romney had more competition this time than last: In 2008, Romney and Ron Paul were the only candidates to campaign for Nevada; this time, all four remaining candidates have stumped here at least nominally.

Gingrich opted to give a press conference rather than the usual "victory" party. Addressing rumors he might leave the race, he vowed to continue all the way to the Republican convention in Tampa in August. Romney, meanwhile, congratulated his rivals and focused his victory speech here on bashing President Obama.

In action, the Nevada caucuses were a messy affair. Unlike Iowans, Nevadans are new to large-scale caucusing, the precinct meetings that technically exist to elect delegates to Republican conventions. Many were unclear on the whole concept, particularly the requirement for on-time, in-person participation rather than primary-style all-day, drop-in balloting. At one Las Vegas high school, would-be voters continued to trickle in long past the 9 a.m. start time, only to be turned away because caucusing had concluded.

More than four dozen precincts gathered at Western High School, meeting individually in classrooms or around cafeteria tables. Some precincts had a single voter; one consisted of a Romney supporter and a Paul supporter, debating foreign-policy and the Constitution for over an hour as they sat at a table waiting for their ballots to arrive; others featured groups of previously unacquainted neighbors holding frank discussions of their views of the candidates.

That was the case for Precinct No. 4612, a 17-vote caucus that convened over three jammed-together tables in Western's cafeteria, which was decorated with red construction-paper hearts in anticipation of Valentine's Day. A portly Ron Paul supporter in a striped tie presided; a young couple of Romney supporters took turns rocking their 7-month-old daughter; a couple of Filipino immigrants who'd recently acquired citizenship said their votes were guided by Jesus; a grizzled man in a dirty cap railed against illegal immigration.

A 40ish man in a red tracksuit and matching cap professed himself "depressed by the state of our country," and ran down his views of the candidates.

"Newt Gingrich has government solutions to stuff I didn't know was a problem," he said. "Mitt Romney -- I understand you're from Massachusetts, but you are totally unfamiliar with the philosophy of conservatism. Ron Paul: Is there a conspiracy theory you do not subscribe to? Have you ever gotten anything done in Congress? Rick Santorum supported [former Pennsylvania Sen.] Arlen Specter and bailouts and government spending. He's probably not much of a conservative either. But of the four, he's the least offensive to me."

That was the man's speech in favor of Santorum. But Paul got the most votes in that precinct -- seven.

At a neighboring table, one man spoke fervently of Gingrich's "bold ideas," only to have an older woman call out from the other end of the table: "I'm not for having an ex-mistress as first lady. Let's get real." Precinct winner: Gingrich.

The overall tally of the 342 votes cast at Western, after a protracted and improvisational counting process overseen by representatives of the Romney and Paul campaigns: 142 for Romney, or 42 percent; 88 for Paul (26 percent); 82 for Gingrich (24 percent); 30 for Santorum (9 percent).

No matter how expected, every contest Romney wins is another batch of delegates, another stop on the inevitability train -- and another missed opportunity for his opponents to derail him. (Nevada has more GOP delegates than South Carolina.) And with the entrance polls showing Romney sweeping all categories, including Tea Partiers and the "very conservative," his big win here will allow him to claim that the party is coming together behind him.

Mormons made up 26 percent of the vote, according to the poll, the same proportion as 2008. Romney was winning 91 percent of their votes, but he was also winning every other religious group except the areligious, who supported Paul.

Whether Paul manages to beat out Gingrich for second place could be significant as well. Paul has staked his campaign on strong showings in caucus states like Nevada. Meanwhile, Santorum moved on from Nevada days ago, setting his sights on Tuesday's contests in Minnesota and Missouri, where social conservatives are a greater presence than the libertarian-minded West. Colorado also holds its caucuses Tuesday.

About the Author

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

The new version of Apple’s signature media software is a mess. What are people with large MP3 libraries to do?

When the developer Erik Kemp designed the first metadata system for MP3s in 1996, he provided only three options for attaching text to the music. Every audio file could be labeled with only an artist, song name, and album title.

Kemp’s system has since been augmented and improved upon, but never replaced. Which makes sense: Like the web itself, his schema was shipped, good enough,and an improvement on the vacuum which preceded it. Those three big tags, as they’re called, work well with pop and rock written between 1960 and 1995. This didn’t prevent rampant mislabeling in the early days of the web, though, as anyone who remembers Napster can tell you. His system stumbles even more, though, when it needs to capture hip hop’s tradition of guest MCs or jazz’s vibrant culture of studio musicianship.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A leading neuroscientist who has spent decades studying creativity shares her research on where genius comes from, whether it is dependent on high IQ—and why it is so often accompanied by mental illness.

As a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who studies creativity, I’ve had the pleasure of working with many gifted and high-profile subjects over the years, but Kurt Vonnegut—dear, funny, eccentric, lovable, tormented Kurt Vonnegut—will always be one of my favorites. Kurt was a faculty member at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop in the 1960s, and participated in the first big study I did as a member of the university’s psychiatry department. I was examining the anecdotal link between creativity and mental illness, and Kurt was an excellent case study.

He was intermittently depressed, but that was only the beginning. His mother had suffered from depression and committed suicide on Mother’s Day, when Kurt was 21 and home on military leave during World War II. His son, Mark, was originally diagnosed with schizophrenia but may actually have bipolar disorder. (Mark, who is a practicing physician, recounts his experiences in two books, The Eden Express and Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So, in which he reveals that many family members struggled with psychiatric problems. “My mother, my cousins, and my sisters weren’t doing so great,” he writes. “We had eating disorders, co-dependency, outstanding warrants, drug and alcohol problems, dating and employment problems, and other ‘issues.’ ”)

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.